The Case Against: Controversy and Unpredictability Are Good Things

Bad refereeing decisions are a crucial part of soccer.

The controversy drives the game and keeps fans talking and debating for hours on end.

A bad decision by one man with a whistle even become iconic parts of popular culture, such as Diego Maradona’s Hand of God goal against England in 1986 which is possible the single most famous incident in sporting history.

The fact that human error can happen not only to the players, but also the match officials means that each soccer match retains a degree of unpredictability even if one team is nominally superior to the other.

So just as USA can force a draw with England because of an inexplicable goalkeeping mistake, so New Zealand can take the lead against world champions Italy because the assistant referee failed to spot that goalscorer Shane Smeltz was offside.

It means you can never be certain that the favorites will triumph and soccer’s underdogs often have their day.

Soccer can be cruel, unpredictable and unfair but also scattered with unbelievable triumphs against the odds. Sounds a lot like life.

The Case Against: Interrupting the Flow

A great soccer game is often described as “pulsating."

This term denotes a game of intense action, with the ball switching from one end of the pitch to the other in breathless fashion.

Soccer has few natural breaks, so each game assumes a dynamic and fluid form that at its best is unique and a sharp contrast to the timeouts that tend to interrupt the drama of a basketball game’s final minutes.

Soccer players and their coaches already try and use substitutions and treatment for injuries to break up the flow of a game and waste time.

The possibility of video replays adds one more impediment to the smooth flow that characterizes the best soccer.

If you introduce a system whereby coaches are awarded a certain number of video challenges per game, as in tennis, then a winning team suddenly has one more tool to impede an opponent’s attempts at a comeback.

On the other hand, if the referee is the person who decides when to use the technology, what happens if you get a fussy referee who wants to make certain of every close call he has to make?

The Case Against: Soccer’s Omnipotent Officials

And every good religion needs an all-powerful central figure that cannot be argued with no matter how inconsistent, unfair, and plain wrong his decisions may seem.

When the referee allowed Carlos Tevez’s opener for Argentina in its second match against Mexico, it was harsh on the Central American underdogs who had worked hard to stifle the Argentine attack as well as showing great ambition going forward.

Much like when God punished the hard work of many proud builders when he tore down the Tower of Babel.

Mexican’s subsequent defending did seem like the players were speaking different languages.

As for Frank Lampard’s shot that crossed the line, this is simply the Hindu theory of karma on display in a number of forms.

First, it was payback for the similar incident that helped England beat West Germany in the 1966 World Cup final.

Also, England didn’t deserve to get back into a game in which it was hopelessly outclassed. So, the god(s) sat back and did nothing and let the universe take it course.

OK, so referees are not quite all-seeing deities. FIFA’s insistence on the primacy of the referee is akin to the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Players already show scant regard for match officials. If you hand the final word over to television, respect for the referee will be something that’s only found in history books.

Conclusion

It seems ludicrous that the referee does not have access to the same instant video replays that the watching world has.

And when the stadium’s big screen at the Argentina vs. Mexico second round match showed the 22 players and officials that Carlos Tevez was in fact offside, FIFA resistance to video replays seems even more remarkable.

But the difference between soccer and many other sports that have successfully employed such technology is that soccer is a simple game governed by very few laws.

Because of this, many decisions made by a referee during a match involves interpretation and personal opinion; therefore FIFA are right to insist that a referee’s decision should be final.

Therefore I would argue against the introduction of video replays in soccer.

However some changes could be applied to help the referees get it right more often.

Goal-line technology to ascertain whether the ball has crossed the line would be useful. Incidents like the Frank Lampard shot in the England vs. Germany second round match are rare, but in matters of the game’s basic currency, goals, it would be best to get this right.

It could be argued that had FIFA extended its recent experiment in additional officials behind the goal to the World Cup, they might have spotted Lampard’s goal and that Tevez was offside.

Finally, why not use video replays to punish obvious divers and cheaters after the game.

A nice post-match suspension for anyone caught on camera clutching their face when they were actually touched on the chest would help cut out the game’s real problem.